Report of the 1st Workshop on Generative AI and Law
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.06477v3
- Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2023 03:09:16 GMT
- Title: Report of the 1st Workshop on Generative AI and Law
- Authors: A. Feder Cooper, Katherine Lee, James Grimmelmann, Daphne Ippolito,
Christopher Callison-Burch, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Niloofar
Mireshghallah, Miles Brundage, David Mimno, Madiha Zahrah Choksi, Jack M.
Balkin, Nicholas Carlini, Christopher De Sa, Jonathan Frankle, Deep Ganguli,
Bryant Gipson, Andres Guadamuz, Swee Leng Harris, Abigail Z. Jacobs,
Elizabeth Joh, Gautam Kamath, Mark Lemley, Cass Matthews, Christine McLeavey,
Corynne McSherry, Milad Nasr, Paul Ohm, Adam Roberts, Tom Rubin, Pamela
Samuelson, Ludwig Schubert, Kristen Vaccaro, Luis Villa, Felix Wu, Elana
Zeide
- Abstract summary: This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw)
A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI.
- Score: 78.62063815165968
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI
and Law (GenLaw), held in July 2023. A cross-disciplinary group of
practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss
the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative
AI, and by Generative AI for law, with an emphasis on U.S. law in particular.
We begin the report with a high-level statement about why Generative AI is both
immensely significant and immensely challenging for law. To meet these
challenges, we conclude that there is an essential need for 1) a shared
knowledge base that provides a common conceptual language for experts across
disciplines; 2) clarification of the distinctive technical capabilities of
generative-AI systems, as compared and contrasted to other computer and AI
systems; 3) a logical taxonomy of the legal issues these systems raise; and, 4)
a concrete research agenda to promote collaboration and knowledge-sharing on
emerging issues at the intersection of Generative AI and law. In this report,
we synthesize the key takeaways from the GenLaw workshop that begin to address
these needs. All of the listed authors contributed to the workshop upon which
this report is based, but they and their organizations do not necessarily
endorse all of the specific claims in this report.
Related papers
- Operationalizing the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights: Recommendations for Practitioners, Researchers, and Policy Makers [20.16404495546234]
Several regulatory frameworks have been introduced by different countries worldwide.
Many of these frameworks emphasize the need for auditing and improving the trustworthiness of AI tools.
Although these regulatory frameworks highlight the necessity of enforcement, practitioners often lack detailed guidance on implementing them.
We provide easy-to-understand summaries of state-of-the-art literature and highlight various gaps that exist between regulatory guidelines and existing AI research.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-11T17:28:07Z) - Unsettled Law: Time to Generate New Approaches? [1.3651236252124068]
We identify several important and unsettled legal questions with profound ethical and societal implications arising from generative artificial intelligence (GenAI)
Our key contribution is formally identifying the issues that are unique to GenAI so scholars, practitioners, and others can conduct more useful investigations and discussions.
We argue that GenAI's unique attributes, including its general-purpose nature, reliance on massive datasets, and potential for both pervasive societal benefits and harms, necessitate a re-evaluation of existing legal paradigms.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-02T05:51:41Z) - Securing the Future of GenAI: Policy and Technology [50.586585729683776]
Governments globally are grappling with the challenge of regulating GenAI, balancing innovation against safety.
A workshop co-organized by Google, University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Stanford University aimed to bridge this gap between GenAI policy and technology.
This paper summarizes the discussions during the workshop which addressed questions, such as: How regulation can be designed without hindering technological progress?
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-21T20:30:01Z) - Responsible Artificial Intelligence: A Structured Literature Review [0.0]
The EU has recently issued several publications emphasizing the necessity of trust in AI.
This highlights the urgent need for international regulation.
This paper introduces a comprehensive and, to our knowledge, the first unified definition of responsible AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-11T17:01:13Z) - Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair
Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
"Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture.
This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias.
In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z) - Stronger Together: on the Articulation of Ethical Charters, Legal Tools,
and Technical Documentation in ML [5.433040083728602]
The need for accountability of the people behind AI systems can be addressed by leveraging processes in three fields of study: ethics, law, and computer science.
We first contrast notions of compliance in the ethical, legal, and technical fields.
We then focus on the role of values in articulating the synergies between the fields.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-09T15:35:31Z) - Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary
Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them.
We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives.
We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z) - An Uncommon Task: Participatory Design in Legal AI [64.54460979588075]
We examine a notable yet understudied AI design process in the legal domain that took place over a decade ago.
We show how an interactive simulation methodology allowed computer scientists and lawyers to become co-designers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-03-08T15:46:52Z) - The State of AI Ethics Report (Volume 5) [0.0]
Report focuses on AI ethics with a special emphasis on "Environment and AI", "Creativity and AI", and "Geopolitics and AI"
Special contributions on the subject of pedagogy in AI ethics, sociology and AI ethics, and organizational challenges to implementing AI ethics in practice.
Report also has an extensive section covering the gamut of issues when it comes to the societal impacts of AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-08-09T10:47:14Z) - An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive
qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence.
The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.